'Draw Muhammad' contest planned in Phoenix

[Wyn6]

Ah, so you DO think it's perfectly fine to venerate a paedophile in 2015, and things don't matter if they happen in the past. Got it.

 

 

Oh I'm quite aware of Aisha's name, I'm also quite aware of the existence of something called Stockholm syndrome.

 

Call me an Islamophobe all you want, it doesn't change the fact that I'm right - although I do prefer the more accurate term "anti-theist".

 

If we're doing the whole labels thing though, I'll slap a nice great big "Misogynist" sticker on your forehead. Now we're even!

Okay. So, you're one of those, "I'm going to argue by drawing deliberately false conclusions to try and reinforce an increasingly weak point," people? Duly noted.

[Nogib]

Muslims could always just wash the sand out of their ###### and realize a drawing is just a drawing.  But they don't want to wear big-boy pants yet.

[Athernar]

Okay. So, you're one of those, "I'm going to argue by drawing deliberately false conclusions to try and reinforce an increasingly weak point," people? Duly noted.

 

Okay. So, you're one of those, "I'm going to run away from the truth because I cannot bear the cognitive dissonance from holding deeply Misogynistic beliefs while claiming the moral highground," people? Duly noted.

[Wyn6]

Okay. So, you're one of those, "I'm going to run away from the truth because I cannot bear the cognitive dissonance from holding deeply Misogynistic beliefs while claiming the moral highground," people? Duly noted.

Yep. You pegged me. Look at the big brain on Athernar!

 

Posted edited by moderator.

[FiB3R]

Unlike most European countries it's actually legal to burn the US flag...

I thought that might be the case, I should have bothered to look it up first.

Was just trying to think of something that would also cause outrage, likely leading to more senseless violence.

[T3X4S]

I bet Montana will be next place.

They are picking open-carry or concel & carry states and/or catering to those groups

In actuality - its just that the type of people who would support something like this - are the same people who own/carry firearms.

Or am I reaching ?
 

[Gone]

Freedom to offend, nothing to do with speech what so ever

Plenty to do with speech. If we could not offend, then we could not offend our government which could (and is at this time) violating our constitution.

 

ISIS is not the first instance of Muslims slaughtering inoocents, however they are the only religious group that i know of right now that does such. It has been how many years since the Crusades (against the Muslims)?

 

Not every Muslim is bad, but look at history and you will see a path of violence and warfare.

 

Freedom of speech is a human right and is enforced in our constitution, that is why the American media can lie and parodies of the president and pope can exists. 

[compl3x]

The fact is, this was not considered pedophilia at the time. So, in the eyes of the people, there was never an issue. Simply because we've redefined the parameters of what is considered to be pedophilia, doesn't change what was a common practice at that time. It wasn't seen as wrong and as a general rule, no one's freedoms were being taken away or violated and no one was being hurt as a consequence.

 

If Plato or Aristotle had sex with men, does that make them any less venerable? Homosexuality wasn't considered a sin nor was it illegal at that time.

 

 

It says a lot about you that you think paedophilia and homosexuality are comparable.

 

The "Oh, but that was back then when it wasn't a big deal" argument doesn't stand up well at all. You would think that a revered leader who was chosen by God would be instructed that this behaviour was exploitative and set a much better example, even abolish and forbid (make haram perhaps?) such practices as immoral, not engage in them.

 

 

As silly and provocative as these sorts of events are, the violent reactions are much worse. The two things might be perpetuating each other. If no one reacted all that much then these drawings might stop happening or not receive so much attention.

 

I think what is particularly racist and ignorant is the idea that Muslims have no control over their response. It's an orientalist view which is offensive.

Edit:

 

Why isn't this posted in the official religion topic? It definitely applies.

[Wyn6]

It says a lot about you that you think paedophilia and homosexuality are comparable.

 

The "Oh, but that was back then when it wasn't a big deal" argument doesn't stand up well at all. You would think that a revered leader who was chosen by God would be instructed that this behaviour was exploitative and set a much better example, even abolish and forbid (make haram perhaps?) such practices as immoral, not engage in them.

That's a rather blanket statement. I'm curious. What exactly does it say about me? Anyway, both pedophilia and homosexuality have been criminalized in many areas of the world and are also considered immoral by those that adhere to certain beliefs. This is the comparison that I was drawing. Nothing more, nothing less. If you read more into it than was intended, either I must apologize for a lack of clarity, or you may need to reassess that conclusion.

 

In the Bible, so-called great and/or righteous men called to the forefront by God, Noah, Lot, Abraham, Isaac, etc. (All considered prophets by Muslims, FYI), married and/or slept with their children, siblings, in-laws, or other kin. Why didn't God "instruct these men that this behavior was exploitative and to set a much better example or to even abolish and forbid (make haram perhaps?) such practices as immoral, not engage in them? Because, it wasn't considered wrong at that time. It wasn't considered exploitative or immoral. It was perfectly normal. Why don't Christians or Jews retroactively persecute these men?

 

As far as the practice of taking a young wife went... once a girl, or boy for that matter, reached an age at which they could have children, they were considered to be adults. I'll say it again... they were adults. A girl of 13 had considerably more childbearing years in front of her as opposed to a female in her late teens or 20s. And, in a time at which the infant mortality rate, and indeed the mortality rate in general, was much higher, it was imperative that a healthy, young female who could bear children, bear as many as she could.

 

It may have began as simple pragmatism that migrated into a cultural norm. Either way, it did become the norm. So, to now retroactively apply a thousand years+ of evolved philosophy, social change and morality to a religious figure revered by two billion people and claim he should be shunned or dismissed, is a bit disingenuous at best, is it not?

 

But, I wholeheartedly agree on the violence. I abhor violence in any context and these nuts certainly aren't helping the stereotypes of Islam that many in the western world carry. If they really want Islam to speak to people, show them why your religion should be embraced, not why it should be reviled. 

 

Conversely, people like Geller, and those holding these sorts of rallies, have the freedom to do so, but should exhibit the common sense not to. I have the freedom to take a stick and poke at a wasp nest. But, my better judgment tells me that wouldn't be the wisest course of action.

[compl3x]

That's a rather blanket statement. I'm curious. What exactly does it say about me? Anyway, both pedophilia and homosexuality have been criminalized in many areas of the world and are also considered immoral by those that adhere to certain beliefs. This is the comparison that I was drawing. Nothing more, nothing less. If you read more into it than was intended, either I must apologize for a lack of clarity, or you may need to reassess that conclusion.

 

Homosexually, like interracial marriage & inter-ethnic marriages, have been criminalised but they weren't criminalised because they were harmful to anyone, they were criminalised because of societal prejudice. Criminalisation of paedophilia is absolutely criminalised, at least in any civilised country, because it is exploitative and harmful to the child. They are not comparable issues. I suggested it says more about you because you seem to think that adults engaging in homosexual behaviour is comparable to an adult having sex with a child. They simply aren't the same.

 

 

 

In the Bible, so-called great and/or righteous men called to the forefront by God, Noah, Lot, Abraham, Isaac, etc. (All considered prophets by Muslims, FYI), married and/or slept with their children, siblings, in-laws, or other kin. Why didn't God "instruct these men that this behavior was exploitative and to set a much better example or to even abolish and forbid (make haram perhaps?) such practices as immoral, not engage in them? Because, it wasn't considered wrong at that time. It wasn't considered exploitative or immoral. It was perfectly normal. Why don't Christians or Jews retroactively persecute these men?

 

And God didn't bother to explain to them that it wasn't normal, because? He didn't bother to forbid them from this behaviour because? Because God sanctioned child-rape and incest? Or at least for a period of time he did? This is the God people worship? To be clear, I am not criticising Muhammad and allowing other Biblical or religious leaders off of the hook. All were guilty. It just seems odd to me that these righteous men, as you call them, weren't better moral examples for the people they claimed to be leaders of. You'd think they would be the gold standard in correct, moral behaviour, not the kind of men who would find themselves serving lengthy prison sentences if they lived today.

 

 

 

 

As far as the practice of taking a young wife went... once a girl, or boy for that matter, reached an age at which they could have children, they were considered to be adults. I'll say it again... they were adults. A girl of 13 had considerably more childbearing years in front of her as opposed to a female in her late teens or 20s. And, in a time at which the infant mortality rate, and indeed the mortality rate in general, was much higher, it was imperative that a healthy, young female who could bear children, bear as many as she could.

 

Again, the moral leaders, chosen by God, no less, could have argued that no adult could take a partner if the age difference was too great. If the relationship would have had an obvious power imbalance. Considering people revered them they would have listened. People have followed their demands for thousands of years since their death, they could have adhered to this one. It's odd how human rights or protection of children wasn't so high on the list of priorities.

 

 

 

It may have began as simple pragmatism that migrated into a cultural norm. Either way, it did become the norm. So, to now retroactively apply a thousand years+ of evolved philosophy, social change and morality to a religious figure revered by two billion people and claim he should be shunned or dismissed, is a bit disingenuous at best, is it not?

 

If you consider the man to be holy or worthy or reverence. If you argue he was beyond criticism or was chosen by God to instruct the rest of the world on how we should live and having sex with kids wasn't even worthy of mention then I would argue we can absolutely question his morality & God's morality. God made many demands of human beings, this one should have been close to the top of the list. Additionally, how can we in the modern era condemn anyone who would want to follow Muhammad's example and take a child bride? One could argue that if you condemn them for doing it you are by extension condemning Muhammad for doing it. The time difference would be largely irrelevant because an immoral act is an immoral act.

 

If Muhammad was just another historical figure who claimed no special moral or ethical superiority you would be right. It would be unreasonable to be so critical of someone who was doing what many others did. But as you helpfully pointed out: he is revered by over a billion people (I don't think it is 2 billion but I haven't the time to check) and his actions and ideas serve as the basis of morality for so many people.

 

 

Conversely, people like Geller, and those holding these sorts of rallies, have the freedom to do so, but should exhibit the common sense not to. I have the freedom to take a stick and poke at a wasp nest. But, my better judgment tells me that wouldn't be the wisest course of action.

 

Because Muslims are like wasps? No agency and no ability to decide on a course of action other than a violent one after being provoked? Isn't that bigoted? It treats Muslims as little more than brutes and barbarians who have no ability to control themselves.

 

It's somewhat ironic that the people who think they are protecting Muslims by condemning criticism of their faith or ridicule of their leaders are the ones paying the biggest insult to them as human being. They are treating them as if they have no capacity to respond to such criticism and ridicule in a non-violent way. They seem to think they are protecting them from themselves. you can't get much more patronising, I would say.

[DocM]

>

Criminalisation of paedophilia is absolutely criminalised, at least in any civilised country, because it is exploitative and harmful to the child. They are not comparable issues.

>

This! This! A thousand times this!

[Wyn6]

 

 

I'm not sure if you're answering my question and explaining why you made that comment, or reiterating that this is what you believe. I certainly hope it's the former.

 

 

 

 

 

Cool. At least you're consistent in your condemnation.

 

 

 

 

You continue to talk about the immorality of it by today's standards. Again, I'd like to point out, the worlds was different 1200 years ago and I've provided a few brief explanations as to why this particular practice existed. Remember, this wasn't limited to Muslims or those in the Middle East. This was common practice throughout other parts of Asia and the European continent, as well. At the time, most people either did not recognize or simply did not believe this was harmful to the female who was considered an adult. 

 

There were plenty things that were acceptable then that we deem unacceptable now. There is a ton of behavior we have no issues with today that future generations may deem unacceptable. I think the time difference is quite relevant. It's easy to simply apply a blanket morality of modern standards to any situation with no regard to circumstances, nuances, and attitudes of the era. But, by doing that, in my opinion, you are providing a historical disservice to that time period.  

 

 

Man, your posts were quite reasonable up until this. Which means I have to throw out the ol' internet defense of, where did I say _____? where blank, in this case, is Muslims are like wasps.

 

Okay, now that that's out of the way. First of all, from reading your posts I surmise that you are intelligent enough to discern the meaning behind what I was saying and what I was not saying. Second of all, I wasn't talking about Muslims. I was talking about idiots. Those are the people that get agitated and respond with violence. There are idiots of all faiths, races, social classes, et al. I know. I grew up with a bunch of 'em. 

 

The vast majority of the 2 billion Muslims do respond to such criticism and ridicule in a non-violent way. However, at any given point in history, certain sects of murderers, thieves, and rapists have taken to misusing religion to further their own agendas be they Muslims, Christians, Jews, Cultists, or what have you. While not exclusive to, this is currently more prevalent with Islam at the moment, unfortunately.

[Memphis]

Rather than compassion and understanding we see hostility and confrontation. What an incredibly immature thing to do, though I can't say I'm surprised.

 

 

I fully agree with this, but at the same time, I do agree that we should not live in fear of death if we disrespect someones religion. I'm quite conflicted on this as I view the religion itself (along with Christianity) with a bit of disdain because of its treatment of women and gays, but I hate the mockery approach and believe it solves nothing.

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

I support this. We live in free counties, and as such, be able to have a 'right to offend'. 
If drawing Mohammad upsets you, draw us westerners doing something that might offend us, and have both sides laugh about it, instead of being all 'oh wallah gunna kill everyone now'. 

[Tomo]

Oh great more dumb people confusing Huskies with Dogs.

 

I take it you too don't understand....

[FloatingFatMan]

I fully agree with this, but at the same time, I do agree that we should not live in fear of death if we disrespect someones religion. I'm quite conflicted on this as I view the religion itself (along with Christianity) with a bit of disdain because of its treatment of women and gays, but I hate the mockery approach and believe it solves nothing.

 

It's a perplexing one indeed. Where does a persons right to free expression end, and another's right to not be abused, begin?  

 

There really is no easy answer to that.  Myself, I take the stance that should I "mock" something as part of an ongoing discussion (such as the long running Religion thread on here), then it's not generally being done as a targeted attack.  If, however, I were to create a thread specifically to post things that I know a certain group finds offensive, then I'm clearly deliberately attacking them and should rightly be censured for that.

[Morisato]

This is good bait for those crazy jihads to show themselves if they do. If something 'does' happen, there better some good film coverage.

[CrossCheck]

[theyarecomingforyou]

I fully agree with this, but at the same time, I do agree that we should not live in fear of death if we disrespect someones religion. I'm quite conflicted on this as I view the religion itself (along with Christianity) with a bit of disdain because of its treatment of women and gays, but I hate the mockery approach and believe it solves nothing.

I have nothing but contempt for religion, as I consider it a blight on the planet and an offence to common sense. It's sad that we live in a society where drawing a picture of someone can cause such offence that people are willing to murder others in response. However, I'm against provocation for the sake of conflict. If this were a comedy competition and someone happened to draw a picture of Muhammed then I'd be the first to defend it under freedom of expression; I'd even have some respect if it was a competition to draw religious figures and people happened to draw Muhammed. The difference here is that the intention is to offend - it's basically an opportunity for Christians to have a go at Muslims, who make up just 0.13% of the population in Arizona. It's being held as part of an anti-Islam protest outside of an Islamic community centre.

 

Freedom of speech should be defended but that isn't achieved by going around insulting people. It's like me walking around saying "I wish Hitler was alive to he could send your entire family to a concentration camp" to everyone I meet and claiming I'm just defending free speech.

[wakjak]

They're not doing it to offend Muslims, they're really doing it to offend people of middle eastern decent. If anyone can prove otherwise, please do.

[wakjak]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/anderson-cooper-hammers-ariz-man-behind-anti-islam-rally-isnt-bringing-guns-to-a-mosque-violent/

Here's the idiot putting the event on.

[FloatingFatMan]

They're not doing it to offend Muslims, they're really doing it to offend people of middle eastern decent. If anyone can prove otherwise, please do.

 

Non-muslims of middle eastern descent aren't going to give a damn about some moron doodling pics of the Mohammed.  Muslims, on the other hand, will.

[Rippleman]

Freedom of speech should be defended but that isn't achieved by going around insulting people. It's like me walking around saying "I wish Hitler was alive to he could send your entire family to a concentration camp" to everyone I meet and claiming I'm just defending free speech.

 

So you are equalizing a drawing of a person to a situation where millions of families were killed? Odd logic you have there.

[Athernar]

So you are equalizing a drawing of a person to a situation where millions of families were killed? Odd logic you have there.

 

Not to mention he can't seem to manage disentangling the action of parodying a figurehead versus going directly up to someone and performing an action that depending on his prior wordings, could be construed as anything from one of those dumb modern "YouTube Pranks" to a direct threat of violence, which is illegal.

[compl3x]

It's a perplexing one indeed. Where does a persons right to free expression end, and another's right to not be abused, begin?  

 

There really is no easy answer to that.  Myself, I take the stance that should I "mock" something as part of an ongoing discussion (such as the long running Religion thread on here), then it's not generally being done as a targeted attack.  If, however, I were to create a thread specifically to post things that I know a certain group finds offensive, then I'm clearly deliberately attacking them and should rightly be censured for that.

 

 

Everyone will claim they are being targeted, even if it isn't the truth. For some reason, religious belief seems to convince people they are constantly being persecuted even when they ain't. Even people in overwhelming religious majorities think they are being unfairly treated. It is truly a bizarre phenomenon.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with targeting a belief, even if you know it'll ###### people off. The problem is your motivation. If you want to point out that there is a real problem within a belief system which you think is harmful or dangerous you should be free to do so. However, if you just don't like group X, and your criticism is motivated more by trying to make group X feel unwelcome, insecure, at risk, or to inspire violence towards group X then your doing something entirely different.

 

It is the a-holes in the latter category who ruin legitimate debate and discussion for everyone else. Let's be honest, pretty much every critic of Islam, even people who used to be Muslims, are simply dismissed as hatemongers or Islamphobes when they criticise it.